Trumps NFL tweet
-
Its just another case of: WFSTDTST
-
So... you are against the players who choose to speak, but you support the right of "people" to freely speak. Except for the players, of course.. because to you, they aren't people any more.
And you don't recognize the inherent contradiction between "supporting freedom when it doesn't align with your opinion" and "telling the players that they don't get to have an opinion" ?
Got it!
News flash: The fact that you only want to give the label of "people" to protest that you approve of...... shows that you don't actually believe one word you posted.
The only issue at hand is whether or not you support governmental clampdowns on the expression of the players. And frankly, if you do, everything you posted about believing in the constitution is complete and total bullshit.
you are a pathetic asswhole. The obeyance of president orders are "conditional" ? LOL you are a stupid asswhole to boot.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/president5.htm
Here's a clue - the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces.
you are a pathetic asswhole. The obeyance of president orders are "conditional" ? LOL you are a stupid asswhole to boot.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/president5.htm
Here's a clue - the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces.
(If the "orders" were coming from say President Barack Obama, you would probably agree that the obeyance of presidential orders are "conditional".
Fair to say?
-
-
you are a pathetic asswhole. The obeyance of president orders are "conditional" ? LOL you are a stupid asswhole to boot.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/president5.htm
Here's a clue - the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces.
(If the "orders" were coming from say President Barack Obama, you would probably agree that the obeyance of presidential orders are "conditional".
Fair to say?
(If the "orders" were coming from say President Barack Obama, you would probably agree that the obeyance of presidential orders are "conditional".
Fair to say?
no, it's stupid to say. Although, in the military - you do NOT obey an illegal order, which would have come from obaMao the terrible.
and yes, lol, I used "obeyance" because I consider it a commonly used word that means "obedience". I never promised you a rose garden.
-
Idc about the rest of the league
But these dumb cunts on the Browns need to stand up and win some football games.
Kneel during the anthem on your own time - or even better, use some of your millions to help make things better - on your own time.
If these jackasses could actually win some football games then idgaf what they wanna do during the national anthem.
-
(If the "orders" were coming from say President Barack Obama, you would probably agree that the obeyance of presidential orders are "conditional".
Fair to say?
no, it's stupid to say. Although, in the military - you do NOT obey an illegal order, which would have come from obaMao the terrible.
and yes, lol, I used "obeyance" because I consider it a commonly used word that means "obedience". I never promised you a rose garden.
no, it's stupid to say. Although, in the military - you do NOT obey an illegal order, which would have come from obaMao the terrible.
and yes, lol, I used "obeyance" because I consider it a commonly used word that means "obedience". I never promised you a rose garden.
So? You DO agree then that obeying an order of the POTUS IS conditional on it being legal.
And, I see, you now want to give President's titles like they did King's of old? Well, there are a couple of such titles for our current guy:
The Unready and the Unworthy.
-
I've said all along this is a terrible and divisive way to protest. It seems to me if you are protesting something you would want to win people over to your side and all this does is to make a large number of people angry and that is counter productive to their cause. It is made even worse by a Browns team that is 0-3 and should be more focused on winning football games. I thought they had figured it out with the team coming on the field with the police, military and first responders and respectfully standing for the national anthem with their arms locked together. They got a lot of POSITIVE response for that.
-
So? You DO agree then that obeying an order of the POTUS IS conditional on it being legal.
And, I see, you now want to give President's titles like they did King's of old? Well, there are a couple of such titles for our current guy:
The Unready and the Unworthy. Gipper
*****************************************
no, you inferred the president can issue orders, and the military folks can use their discretion to apply conditions
whether or not to comply. The stipulation that illegal orders shall not be followed is huge in the UCMJ, and applies to any superior across the military who issues an illegal order. After eight years, obaMao still deserves nicknames. "illegal" is not subjective.
It was sour grapes to give them to Trump when he was in office for a week.
-
Basic question though: why is the playing of the National anthem needed at a sporting event? To me, going to or watching a sporting event (NFL or otherwise), is just another form of entertainment. Americans, being people of leisure enjoy many forms of entertainment. We go to movies, we go to concerts (rock, jazz, classical or otherwise), we go to plays, we watch videos, we go to festivals and fairs and amusement parks, We turn on the radio and the TV, we turn on our computers and view various matters for our entertainment. Why is there not a 'rule' that the national anthem must be played when you choose to engage in all these other forms of entertainment? Sports, sporting events are just entertainment. Why mandate the national anthem for them and not all the others? I guess if you want a "simple solution" ..just don't give people the opportunity to engage in such protests...if you feel offended by such (constitutionally protected) form or speech. It is a simply tradition to play the anthem at these events. There is no law mandating it. The rule that the league has about it is just a league rule. They change rules all the time. They have rules now against hitting the QB that they have changed. They recently changed the celebration rules. The have rules relating to the length of a player's sock length. Like I said: why just have the anthem at sporting events but not at other entertainment events? Purely tradition.
-
So? You DO agree then that obeying an order of the POTUS IS conditional on it being legal.
And, I see, you now want to give President's titles like they did King's of old? Well, there are a couple of such titles for our current guy:
The Unready and the Unworthy. Gipper
*****************************************
no, you inferred the president can issue orders, and the military folks can use their discretion to apply conditions
whether or not to comply. The stipulation that illegal orders shall not be followed is huge in the UCMJ, and applies to any superior across the military who issues an illegal order. After eight years, obaMao still deserves nicknames. "illegal" is not subjective.
It was sour grapes to give them to Trump when he was in office for a week.
no, you inferred the president can issue orders, and subordinates can use their discretion to apply conditions
whether or not to comply.
I was not the one to infer that..it was someone else (and quite frankly...I was not really following your conversation).
The stipulation that illegal orders shall not be followed is huge in the UCMJ, and applies
to any superior across the military who issues an illegal order. After eight years, obaMao still deserves nicknames.
It was sour grapes to give them to Trump when he was in office for a week.
Oh, it was not sour grapes. Quite the opposite. It is more like DJT is a sex slave feeding grapes to an orgy of comedians. He is a comedian's dream. No one in history has been more amenable to being made fun/light of.
-
no, you inferred the president can issue orders, and subordinates can use their discretion to apply conditions
whether or not to comply.
I was not the one to infer that..it was someone else (and quite frankly...I was not really following your conversation).
The stipulation that illegal orders shall not be followed is huge in the UCMJ, and applies
to any superior across the military who issues an illegal order. After eight years, obaMao still deserves nicknames.
It was sour grapes to give them to Trump when he was in office for a week.
Oh, it was not sour grapes. Quite the opposite. It is more like DJT is a sex slave feeding grapes to an orgy of comedians. He is a comedian's dream. No one in history has been more amenable to being made fun/light of.
He is a comedian's dream. No one in history has been more amenable to being made fun/light of.
Obama was a clown, he was just handled with kid gloves by the MSM.
Jay Leno poked fun at the Kenyan, and he lost his job.
-
He is a comedian's dream. No one in history has been more amenable to being made fun/light of.
Obama was a clown, he was just handled with kid gloves by the MSM.
Jay Leno poked fun at the Kenyan, and he lost his job.
Obama was a clown, he was just handled with kid gloves by the MSM.
Jay Leno poked fun at the Kenyan, and he lost his job.
Trump is an incompetent, inept, irrational, irresponsible asshat (who LOOKS more like a clown than just about anyone I have ever seen...and who should have stuck to being what he was good at....being a game show host). Leno retired because he was over the hill...had nothing to do with any college in Ohio.
-
Move to the Political Boards where the asshats can all congregate together...and not bother the rest of us with their RRRRRRRRhetoric.
-
So? You DO agree then that obeying an order of the POTUS IS conditional on it being legal.
And, I see, you now want to give President's titles like they did King's of old? Well, there are a couple of such titles for our current guy:
The Unready and the Unworthy. Gipper
*****************************************
no, you inferred the president can issue orders, and the military folks can use their discretion to apply conditions
whether or not to comply. The stipulation that illegal orders shall not be followed is huge in the UCMJ, and applies to any superior across the military who issues an illegal order. After eight years, obaMao still deserves nicknames. "illegal" is not subjective.
It was sour grapes to give them to Trump when he was in office for a week.
The stipulation that illegal orders shall not be followed is huge in the UCMJ
Thanks for admitting that I'm right, as usual - but you just wanted to call someone an asshole, as usual.
Here's a clue: Following the President's orders is conditional on those orders both being legal and meeting the conditions of the UCMJ.
Which is exactly what I stated the first time.
Try reading before you reply next time, ignorant asshole.
Clue #2: When you type your inevitable clusterfuck of a reply, your assertions of "what I really meant even though I explicitly didn't say it" will be wrong. Your lack of reading comprehension isn't my problem.
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
Idc about the rest of the league
But these dumb cunts on the Browns need to stand up and win some football games.
Kneel during the anthem on your own time - or even better, use some of your millions to help make things better - on your own time.
If these jackasses could actually win some football games then idgaf what they wanna do during the national anthem.
Idc about the rest of the league
But these dumb cunts on the Browns need to stand up and win some football games.
Kneel during the anthem on your own time - or even better, use some of your millions to help make things better - on your own time.
If these jackasses could actually win some football games then idgaf what they wanna do during the national anthem.
I agree with that. There are reasons that the NFL is losing viewership and support. This is only one of them. Those of us who follow bad teams like our beloved Cleveland Browns should at least be able to pretend that they care about us and that means our country our city our tradition etc etc. Maybe that's naive but if we learn they don't give a shit either way, or even worse actively dislike us, and just want our money it's not as much fun to watch them. And it's certainly not as much fun to make excuses when they suck.
And as I noticed again and will mention again yesterday while I was watching the game with the Gipper I think we both noticed a handful of bad calls. Did the bad calls shift the game one way or the other? Hard to tell but they can certainly turn the tide when a phantom holding call or an overlooked helmet-to-helmet allows your opponent to advance.
WSS
-
Idc about the rest of the league
But these dumb cunts on the Browns need to stand up and win some football games.
Kneel during the anthem on your own time - or even better, use some of your millions to help make things better - on your own time.
If these jackasses could actually win some football games then idgaf what they wanna do during the national anthem.
I agree with that. There are reasons that the NFL is losing viewership and support. This is only one of them. Those of us who follow bad teams like our beloved Cleveland Browns should at least be able to pretend that they care about us and that means our country our city our tradition etc etc. Maybe that's naive but if we learn they don't give a shit either way, or even worse actively dislike us, and just want our money it's not as much fun to watch them. And it's certainly not as much fun to make excuses when they suck.
And as I noticed again and will mention again yesterday while I was watching the game with the Gipper I think we both noticed a handful of bad calls. Did the bad calls shift the game one way or the other? Hard to tell but they can certainly turn the tide when a phantom holding call or an overlooked helmet-to-helmet allows your opponent to advance.
WSS
should at least be able to pretend that they care about us
They're not your trained monkeys, dude..
Time for you to at least be able to pretend you care about them as people, because in this entire thread all I see is the projection of expectations onto them..
The only time ""freedom of speech" is actually a thing is when it concerns an issue you disagree with. You don't get to define who is and who isn't a person, you don't get to define what is and what isn't an issue important enough to protest about..
How many fights have you started with neighbors in seats who were eating nachos instead of standing with their hand and elbow at an appropriate angle?
-
The stipulation that illegal orders shall not be followed is huge in the UCMJ
Thanks for admitting that I'm right, as usual - but you just wanted to call someone an asshole, as usual.
Here's a clue: Following the President's orders is conditional on those orders both being legal and meeting the conditions of the UCMJ.
Which is exactly what I stated the first time.
Try reading before you reply next time, ignorant asshole.
Clue #2: When you type your inevitable clusterfuck of a reply, your assertions of "what I really meant even though I explicitly didn't say it" will be wrong. Your lack of reading comprehension isn't my problem.
Clue #2: When you type your inevitable clusterfuck of a reply, your assertions of "what I really meant even though I explicitly didn't say it" will be wrong. Your lack of reading comprehension isn't my problem.
This is my favorite response so far. Well done.
-
The stipulation that illegal orders shall not be followed is huge in the UCMJ
Thanks for admitting that I'm right, as usual - but you just wanted to call someone an asshole, as usual.
Here's a clue: Following the President's orders is conditional on those orders both being legal and meeting the conditions of the UCMJ.
Which is exactly what I stated the first time.
Try reading before you reply next time, ignorant asshole.
Clue #2: When you type your inevitable clusterfuck of a reply, your assertions of "what I really meant even though I explicitly didn't say it" will be wrong. Your lack of reading comprehension isn't my problem.
Thanks for admitting that I'm right, as usual - but you just wanted to call someone an asshole, as usual.
Following the President's orders is conditional on those orders both being legal and following the conditions of the UCMJ.
Which is exactly what I stated.
Try reading before you reply next time, ignorant asshole.
conditional is subjective, you idiot.
" subject to one or more conditions or requirements being met; made or granted on certain terms: "
There is no subjectivity . It's concrete - you know the UCMJ, and abide by it. That's it. There are no "certain terms" made or granted.
There are no "conditions" where you follow an illegal order, there are no conditions where an illegal order is allowed
to be issued. None. Were you in the military? You are wrong. There is NO condition where you don't have to follow a legal order.
There is no condition where you are allowed to obey an illegal order. Not conditional.
-
That's three repeats around the same topic!
You are all now sentenced to watch the Key and Peele excessive celebration sketch.
Please resume your normally scheduled flame wars on the politics board where I'll never see it.
-
Thank you for conceding. Have a nice day. and this thread should have been put on the politics board.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login